Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Why do you hate Freedom, AP?

This is nothing more than lies from the Liberal Media.

If you hate America so much, go to Canada!!!!!!!!

Protecting us from Terrorists is hard work.

This is just more proof we need a stronger Patriot Act!!!!!!!!

Democrats should provide their own plan instead of whining…..

Thanks Aldous. I’m curious how many on the right will ditto your post. :)

If it is so easy to smuggle all of theses weapons in and then destroy a port city, why hasn’t been done? Are the terrorists waiting for a more dramtic time, the 2004 election wasn’t good enough. In the last fours, how many attacks have been successful here in the US? It all sounds like poltical window dressing. The best way to protect against attacks is not to build a fortress but to scout where the attacks are coming from and stop them there. If a ship has a nuclear bomb and is in port, it already way too late. The city is toast as soon as the bomb goes off.

The Democrats aren’t whinning they are just showing off the Emperor’s new clothes

Aldous, you asked AP abut hating freedom? And made the comment go live in Canada, why do you live outside of the US? (which you stated in a previous post)

What we need is common sense. And thank goodness that the Sentors in in AP posting are showing that.

Liberal Media & Right Wing Media both are the same. My grandmother(A smart old school Republican) once said about the Media. Believe nothing you hear, half of what you read or watch and make your own decision with the brains you were born with.

AP,

You do as good a job as any I have seen identifying a “problem” without ever volunteering any information as to how to fix the problem. You “fix” seems to focus on assigning blame to the Republicans. I don’t know where the liberal media gets these percentages from that you are wont to quote.

Hillary’s quote about Fed-Ex doing a better job tracking packages than the NRC does tracking radioactive materials is ridiculous.

Evidently the female senators of your party are the only ones with enough motivation to introduce Acts. Are these supported by the party or are they sacrificial lambs cast out as bait. In Hillary’s case, she (IMO) does nothing unless it has the potential to focus attention on herself given her aspirations for a presedential run.

When it is all said and done, a lot more is said than done.

The Dems have found religion on national security. Good. Having an opposition that looks for and finds flaws in our system is a good thing, no matter what the motivation.

The fact is that we can improve our defenses all we want and never be safe as long as we allow in people and goods from other countries. Of the two, the former is more dangerous. In a country like ours, a person with the knowledge and will to do harm can easily find ways to do it.

We are less likely to suffer from an imported bomb than from something made locally. The 911 terrorists imported nothing dangerous except their minds and they were armed only with box cutters.

We will never be 100% secure. While we certainly should be proactive in developing physical security, the most effective way to become more secure is through a good offense. That means things like the Patriot Act and it means things like taking the fight to the terrorists and it means things like encouraging democracy in the Middle East. If we don’t win these fights, fortress America will be as effective as the Maginot Line

If a ship has a nuclear bomb and is in port, it already way too late.

Duh. Come on Alan! All you’re doing is telling us you didn’t bother to either read or comprehend the article. That situation is exactly what these people are trying to prevent by inspecting containers and securing nukes at their point of origin. The entire GAO report deals with how the Republican Congress is neglecting and underfunding efforts to detect WMD before the container enters a US port.

But I know what you’re getting at, and by the same logic you must believe George Bush is responsible for the absence of catastrophic earthquakes in Michigan since he took office. Whatever.

As far as I can tell, our Democratic representatives in Congress are the only ones serious about defeating terrorism.

You do as good a job as any I have seen identifying a “problem” without ever volunteering any information as to how to fix the problem.

steve smith, I can see you read the article. You even acknowledge that fixes - in the form of solid legislation - are on the table.

And don’t be a fool. Of course the legislation is supported by the party. If you’re only argument is that you don’t believe Democrats mean it, then call the bluff. Urge your Senators to support them.

The stats are from the General Accountability Office of Congress. That’s as real and non-partisan as it gets.

Hating freedom?
Lies from the liberal media?
Not offering any plan of your own?

Actually AP offered several recommendations.

Talk about recycling the same attacks over and over. Always without specifics and always with the intent of making people think twice before criticizing.

AP,

Good points all.

One does have to wonder however, if your homeland security is as bad as some make it out to be, why has there not been meaningful terrorist activity post 9/11. We must be doing something right.

We will never be 100% secure.

Of course not. But we can be more secure than we are now. Unfortunately, that’s not a priority for Republicans in Congress.

That means things like the Patriot Act

Which Democrats voted for, and much of which we fully support.

and it means things like taking the fight to the terrorists

And yet, that’s not happening. Bin Laden and al Qaeda are in Pakistan, not Iraq. It took bin Laden more than a year to even deputize Zarqawi. And while we’ve been spinning our wheels in Iraq, al Qaeda reconstituted itself and changed from a relatively small terrorist outfit to the catalyst for a global anti-American movement.

If you’re trying to argue that invading Iraq has anything to do with fighting al Qaeda and global terrorism, you’re misguided. The CIA, the State Department, and every respected independent strategic analyst all agree that focusing on Iraq instead of terrorism has increased the danger.

and it means things like encouraging democracy in the Middle East.

No kidding. That’s been a bi-partisan goal since the Clinton administration, but it’s becomming clearer that the democracy export experiment in Iraq is failing, and there haven’t yet been any significant changes elsewhere in the Middle East. Wake me up when Palestine is a free-market liberal democracy - or even just a sovereign nation run by the terrorist group Hamas.

When it is all said and done, a lot more is said than done.

And that’s the way it will remain as long as the Republican majority in Congress are more interested in stopping gay marriage than stopping terrorists. Support our Democrats.

It appalls me this is seen as a partisan issue. Come on. This ain’t judicial nominees or flat taxes or minimum wage legislation. This is something everybody - reps, dems, inds, others - ought to line in favor of, just as they lined up against the terrorist on 9/11. This ain’t the Maginot Line, for God’s sake. We’re obviously running a pretty serious offense right now. Yes, the Bush administration should be criticized for doing too little in areas where they should be doing more, but this criticism should come from both aisles. What an absolutely screwy country!!

why has there not been meaningful terrorist activity post 9/11.

I assume you mean inside the US, so I won’t bother pointing out the numerous al Qaeda attacks outside the US since the Iraq invasion in places like SE Asia, Europe, Turkey, Russia, India, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

Who knows? Why did they wait eight years between the two WTC attacks? Obviously we’ve taken some measures to secure the country, but they only have to get lucky once.

Just out of curiosity, is there actually any objection to securing loose nukes or inspecting shipping containers before they reach the US?

And why is this even a partisan issue? Except that I chose to frame it that way because Democrats in Congress are the only ones taking the threat seriously? ;)

If it is so easy to smuggle all of theses weapons in and then destroy a port city, why hasn’t been done?

Alan Winship

Thats a good question, and not so hard to answer.

Look at what the US did to Afghanistan for the 9/11 attacks. And now Iraq has fallen too, because it was alledged that they had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I think its fairly clear why terrorists haven’t executed a major strike against American civilians. If a nuclear device was detonated in a major US port city, every nation suspected of harboring terrorists would be at extreme risk of retaliation. And not only from the US, but from most of the European nations, plus allies in Asia such as Japan and India, and Australia. The Bush administration has already toppled two governments. The terrorists would have no place left to hide if they do as you suggest. Even their own governments such as Iran and North Korea would turn over the terrorists rather than face extreme retaliation from the US, sanctioned by most governments in the free world.

Just out of curiosity, is there actually any objection to securing loose nukes or inspecting shipping containers before they reach the US?

I have no objection to this at all, in fact I encourage it. As well I have no objection to ensuring that oil tankers are constructed and, their procedures monitored so that we never have an oil spill. These are quite common however.

Also I think that securing our thousands upon thousands of miles of borders with neighboring countries would be helpful. I am sure you would agree that this is extremely tough in terms of $ and present laws governing the comings and goings of people and product. Laws passed at one time or another by both parties.

AP,

I agree, we need better port security, we should hire a private, non-union contractor to get to work on that problem!

That way if someone doesn’t do their job they can be fired on the spot!

Good idea.

I am sure you would agree that this is extremely tough in terms of $

That’s part of my point, though. There’re plenty of tax dollars available, but the Republican Congress and White House are assigning homeland security a very low priority for receiving them - when they deal with the issue at all, I mean.

Here’s an interesting thing about this administration’s approach to homeland security: As first chief of the DHS, President bush appointed a guy who was very vocal about his opposition to it - much the same way Bush nominated a UN representative who loathes the UN.

Now, I’m sure Tom Ridge is a good guy and was only following orders, but he never did come up with enforcable regulations regarding port security, or chemical plant security, or any other kind of security, really.

In fact, he went around touring US ports, telling them the US government would not spend the money to secure them. That securing our ports must be a market-driven initiative with no interference or enforcable regulations from the government.

Unfortunately, the market will not protect this country. If I’m a business man (and I am), the first thing I’m going to look at is the cost. And it’s going to cost A LOT. My problem is, if I spend A LOT and my competition does not, they’re going to undercut my prices and put me out of business. I’m not going to secure my operation because it’s bad for business.

So I look for the downsides of not securing the operation. You know what? There aren’t any. The chances that my particular operation is going to get hit by terrorists are pretty small, so if it never happens then I’m a fool to spend money on security. If I do get very unlucky, insurance will pay for the damages and federal disaster aid will keep the creditors off my back until I can rebuild.

As a businessman, there’s really no benefit to securing my port/refinery/chemical plant/whatever, and no downside for failing to do so. It’s not even illegal because there are no regulations with which I’m required to comply.

Just heading off the ‘do nothing and hope the market takes care of homeland security’ strategy that Republicans in government seem to be taking. ;)

AP,

I honestly do not believe that the Republican Congress and White House are intentionally underfunding and/or assigning a low priority to homeland security. Defending a nation that has been attacked and the enemy is visible is much easier than protecting a nation against a potential attack, especially when that attack can be mounted on several fronts by numerous sources and with the use of “invisible weapons”.

Given the lax immigration policies (my opinion) that we have had for generations, “internal” strongholds of anti-American or terrorist groups may well have been evolving over time. These can be your neighbors, your doctor, shopkeeper, lawyer, whatever.

OK, steve smith, but the question isn’t whether the Bush administration and/or the Republican leadership in congress “intend” to underfund homeland security. The question here is whether port security should be more of a priority, and whether the current leadership has been negligent in realizing (and/or appropriately funding) this need.

Steve Westby,

More of a priority than what. I believe it is extremely high on the priority list.

I do not believe that current leadership is or has been “negligent” in realizing (and/or appropriately funding) this need.

I honestly do not believe that the Republican Congress and White House are intentionally underfunding and/or assigning a low priority to homeland security.

More than 9 million cargo containers enter US ports every year from foreign ports. 0.34% - one third of one percent - of them are screened before they reach reach the docks in our port cities.

Efforts to secure nuclear weapons and materials for other types of “dirty bombs” to keep them out of the hands of terrorists are critically underfunded,

“Incredibly, even though our way of life is at stake here, we are pursuing a business as usual approach to preventing nuclear terrorism. The price of slow action could easily be loss of life, property and freedom on an unprecedented and catastrophic scale,” testified Joan Rohfling of the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

steve, the money is available - trillions of taxpayer of dollars - but Republicans in Congress are hijacking it for tax cuts, corporate subsidies, and an unnecessary war. And when was the last time you heard ANY of them, including President Bush, insisting that we must do more to secure this country?

The only voices I ever hear on this issue are those of our Democratic representatives.

Signing off for the night (after midnight here). Have fun and tell your Senators to support S.1032, S.1013, and S.1150.

AP

100% inspection is impossible. There are a number of statistical inspections specifically designed for the purpose of addressing the quality of very large quantities by inspecting a smaller sample. A failure at the first level sends you to a larger sampling etc. The Federal Government has many of these, I have used some in private industry.

Unlike you I have heard President Bush speak often about homeland security and it’s importance. The only voices you hear are Democratic representatives. I hear them too:

They say :
“We have a problem with homeland security”
“More needs to be done about securing nuclear weapons and materials”
” The Republicans have not placed a priority on this issue”

What I don’t hear is a single voice in the night offering a solution.

We could have a lot more to pay for homeland security if we cancelled a few social programs that we no longer need. I would list a few but that isn’t what this discussion is about.

I agree with a lot of Sean Hannity’s views but he has gone so far over to the entertainment side of radio it’s gotten too annoying for me. How many times can you hear the Robert Bird speech? How many times can you hear the Ted Kennedy singing? How many times can you hear the Dean scream or the Gore yelling? God sean get over it already and get back to your to the point political views. The more you get on Al Franken the more you sound like him. And what’s with having guests on your program that differ from your views only to force them to answer yes or no questions? The more Hannity claims to be fair and balanced the more he sounds one sided. He has gotten into a habit of changing the subject or cutting the person off if they start to make sense or give a good answer. It’s now his trade mark. You’re over the edge Sean and you’re going to start hurting your party if you keep going. I sure don’t value your opinions anymore when it comes to politics or social issues. I’ll stay conservative but not because of anything you say

K,

I’m not sure if you knew or not, dual unrelated posts on various threads will likely be deemed as spam by the watchblog MGR.
I thought I’d let you know before the MGR. points it out to you.

Don’t want ya getting in trouble ya know.

A good offense?

I agree. Go get’em.

I’ve never seen success in a one-sided approach. We MUST have a better defense. We can’t continue to play on side of the ball.

The right wing is so engrossed in political talk when defense mechanisms are brought up (particularly by the dems) in public, it is simply because we “hate the president” or “we will win by fighting over there” or “why hasn’t an attach already occurred here, it must be fine, right?”

The right is correct in taking the fight to the terrorist (although I don’t know how Iraq got into the mess). But when it comes to securing our boarders, checking more incoming shipments, etc. it’s the old “head in the sand” routine.

Sure, we are doing a little better on the defensive side of the ball. Little progress is better than no progress. However, when the hole in the defense shows up on the political map it will likely be due to the fact that American citizens are mourning the death of their brothers and sisters.

We need to be proactive both in the offensive pursuit of terrorist and on the defensive prevention of terrorism. We are heavy-handed on the offense right now and due to personnel and monetary concerns we are doing little on the defensive side.

Look, GW and the GOP doesn’t do everything wrong. Neither do they do everything right. But trust me, if the hole in the defense shows up…and it likely will…those in power will (and should) be held accountable.

Alan said: “If it is so easy to smuggle all of theses weapons in and then destroy a port city, why hasn’t been done? Are the terrorists waiting for a more dramtic time, the 2004 election wasn’t good enough. In the last fours, how many attacks have been successful here in the US?”

I wish you could tempt fate a little more, please. In case you were unaware, many of the terrorist that were involved in the first trade center bombing were also involved in the second. Those that carried out the acts were in and out of this country over several years. These folks are patient. They plan meticulously. They don’t have military might so they plan until the probability of a successful mission is high. Then they rehearse for a long time afterwards. There could be material already within our boarders that they plan on using in the future.

It’s not IF another terrorist attack will occur here….it is WHEN.

Steve Smith,

GW has spoken of homeland security. Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up. Stop blindly following this man (party).

The GOP and GW have been wrongly critized by the dems and the left on many issues. This ain’t one of ‘em.

You are correct in your statement that we can’t perform 100% inspections. That’s not AP’s point nor is it the point of any of the bills introduced (give them a read before critizing them). Much like our own nuclear commercial power, this should be approached on a risked base method (just as the current homeland security head has suggested). Target the higher risk/higher danger areas. That’s where the money needs to be spent.

I’m tired of seeing all of the support our troops stickers on cars. Not because I don’t support them, I absolutely do. Because if we really wanted to support our troops and if we really felt we were at war, we would accept a slight increase in taxes to supply our troops the propper armor and at the same time approach homeland security in a risk-base manner (and I mean ACTUALLY SPEND SOME MONEY ON IT, not just talk about it. It’s kind of like coming up with the “no child left behind” policy. It may have been a great plan, but it needed funds to succeed and it never got the funds distributed. In Homeland security we’ve got some great ideas….guess what? They require money.

By the way, a dirty bomb is not at all like a nuclear weapon in the traditional sense. A dirty bomb can blow up in a traditional manner and be packed with radioactive contamination that spreads over wide areas. The contamination may not kill but may cause fear and, depending on the amount and kind of radioactive contamination, birth defects or chronic health concerns to the public. These things are not at all complicated to make and if smuggled in piece by piece not that easy to detect….especially if hidden under a company name that would legitimately deal in radioactive contamination.

Tom L is right,

The family of individuals killed on previous air flights destroyed by terrorists had lobbied George Bush I, among others, in order to try to convince them to change FAA rules on cockpit security. It’s likely that if their changes had been adopted, there would be no 9/11.

But George I, and the rest of us, thought the expense wasn’t worth the increase in security. After all, how many terrorists were hijacking U.S. flights in the first place?

AFter 9/11, all the Republicans leapt on this as a Democratic weakness, and talked up the fact that they’d always been the fear-mongering, pro-military party, and with them we’d all be safe.

So I find it ironic that many here are coming down hard on AP, when he writes about national security and were our priorities should be. I wish, AP, you’d also mentioned the lack of forward momentum we’ve gotten on securing our chemical plants around the U.S.

Frankly, our legislators pushed through a bad national security bill that is now going more towards pork barrel politics, than actual safety for our country. AP is right, the programs he has outlined represent the cream of the crop of legislation that’s oriented towards real solutions.

It’s not a partisan thing to be behind this legislation, and we should do it sooner rather than later.

Tom L.

I do not understand your response to my 100% inspection statement. I went on to suggest that a statistical inspection be used. You simply repeated what I said? Risk Based method = Statistical mmethod.

What is your paragraph about a “dirty bomb”? I said nothing in my post about dirty bombs.

I think homeland security imporovements are happening as we speak. Also I think that some components are probably in place or scheduled that we do not even know about. Our media tends to broadcast everything we do in advance of doing it which is akin to sending the enemy a blueprint.

Wow, AP, your article and several follow up comments are a great example of the points I was making in my middle-column post about two-party systems supporting the tearing down of the other side over building of ideals and leading…

Great job!

AP & others:

The GAO is under the executive branch of government, is it not? The CBO is the congressional accountability agency.

Our borders are not secure. This will take a multi-faceted approach. First and foremost should have been and still should be, erecting the border defense with electronic, electric on the ground detection equipment and deterrent fence as well as regional Nat’l Guard response teams set at intervals such that they can be on the ground at vulnerable spots within 15 minutes of detection. In addition, the foreign inspection of incoming traffic (now underway) should be continued and expanded. And finally, overseas intelligence (very weak at the moment) needs to be beefed up through the CIA and State Dep’t.s and NSA, which would be enhanced by strengthening our alliances internationally.

Comprehensive, folks. American security needs a comprehensive approach. Anything less, and we are inviting disaster.

Vital resources needed for such a comprehensive approach are currently being consumed and used in Iraq. Iraq did not make us safer. Iraq keeps us from doing what we need to do in terms of equipment, budget and national guard personnel to implement a comprehensive defensive strategy. Offense without defense, as any chess player knows is pure folly.

Very interesting post David.

The only thing I worry about is that all too many are proposing ways for us to be incredibly safe (nothing wrong with that) but to do so in such a way as to put ourselves in a cocoon and announce to the world here we are you cant get us.

I think you have to be able to make strong statements of offensive force to make sure everyone still understands that you have the offensive capability. (Iraq, do it big now and get it over with)

David,

Offense without defense, as any chess player knows is pure folly.

A good offense is always a good defense… At least when you’re dealing with one enemy. So in the case of the U.S. the “offense is defense” maxim doesn’t really work, but in chess it does…

Ok, rambling done.

And again, the problem at hand is that we have all this money allocated to national security, and yet we’re spending it on stupid things. The bills AP has outlined merely allocates the money towards higher priority national defense issues.

So we’re not arguing “should we bother to upgrade our dfeneses”, but “What should we do with the money the President allocated to upgrade our defenses” And if you guys think that buying fancy bomb vehicles for tiny towns in the midwest is higher priority than upgrading the defenses on our ports, protecting our chemical factories, or providing roadside bomb jammers to our troops, tehn I don’t know what to say. I certainly didn’t think I’d be hearing the REPUBLICAN group objecting to this kind of thing.

Rhinehold is right, we’ve gotten to a point where we all just argue our side to argue our side, instead of focusing on the solution to our problems.

If anyone has a BETTER idea of what to do with our homeland defense dollars, I’d like to hear it. Remer’s ideas on border defense are the only solution-oriented comments I’ve seen yet.

That being said, A.P. has put forward actually bills that have a chance of fixing things now. And we can all take pro-active action by urging our legislators to get behind these bills now.

Julia

Zeek, I hate to say it, but it appears obvious from your last comment that you never attended a war college. Many a great offense in history has been for nought when flanked. And our borders are the flanks.

Jack-
I believe there’s a difference between not going insanely overboard in trying to seal up the country, and failing to do basic things to improve security. I would rather hedge my bets with stateside security improvements, than half to hear another round of explanations like that B.S. that came out of the 9/11 Commission as to why we didn’t stop those terrorists in time.

Let’s take care of business folks, and not let the unattainable perfect security become the enemy of the better security that is within our reach.

Let’s take care of business folks, and not let the unattainable perfect security become the enemy of the better security that is within our reach.

Well put.

Jeffrey Gluckson

I think its fairly clear why terrorists haven’t executed a major strike against American civilians. If a nuclear device was detonated in a major US port city, every nation suspected of harboring terrorists would be at extreme risk of retaliation.

Al Qaeda and groups like it have no such quibbles. They hate most of the governments of their region, and don’t really depend too much on any one of them for support. The reality is that war is exactly what they want to start. If the world goes to hell, that’s more opportunities for them to spread their influence.

The real reason they haven’t detonated a nuclear device is because they don’t have one. Not because they can’t get it in through the ports.

Weapons-grade uranium is still the bottle-neck. But with proliferators like our friends in Pakistan, and corruption like our friends in Russia, we can rest assured that terrorists are quickly moving forward on overcoming that little obstacle.

I’d like to see a little more attention paid to upgrading security at Russian nuclear facilities.

Julia

Steve, we agree on an agressive foreign campaign to deal with enemies before they get here. But, the fact is, these enemies are not dumb. If our flanks are exposed, they will go for the flanks rather than try to take us head on overseas.

I am not suggesting a cacoon. I am suggesting that our defenses at home be at least as aggressive as our overseas efforts. To date, that has not been the case.

I do not understand your response to my 100% inspection statement. I went on to suggest that a statistical inspection be used.

steve, again it looks like you didn’t fully comprehend the original article. No one is saying we can check 100% of the containers, but surely - after four years - we should be doing better than one third of one percent. 99.66% of containers are not being inspected before they enter US port cities.

And statistical checks are being used. Our bureaucracy is slow, not stupid. Of the much smaller “high-risk” subset (your statistical inspection) of the 9 million containers that arrive annually, only 17.5% get checked. Surely, after four years, we should not be letting 82.5% of the containers most likely to be carrying a nuke into our port cities uninspected.

As for the offense/defense thing, nobody on either side of the aisle is advocating a pure offense or pure defense, so arguing about that is pointless. However, there are clear problems with the balance and the focus of our efforts.

As I point out, not enough emphasis is being placed on defense by the majority party who are setting the agenda. Period. Homeland security has been underfunded since its inception by a party that first opposed it, then kept it weak for fear that it would derail plans for tax cuts for wealthy individuals, tax breaks for multi-national corporations, and an unnecessary war in Iraq - but most of all, out of fear that it would impose expensive mandatory security regulations on industry (including the chemical industry - thanks Julia). And somehow, border security devolved into a cultural debate kept around to be exploited by the Republican Party as a wedge issue against Democrats. Crazy.

And on defense, I’m also talking about a forward-deployed defense including checking containers at their point of origin and securing loose nukes overseas and tracking radioactive materials as Senator Clinton is suggesting. These efforts are being underfunded and neglected by the majority party.

On the offense side, we started out pretty good in Afghanistan, but haven’t seriously targeted terrorism since. And attempts to get to the root of the problem by exporting democracy have so far failed and only exacerbated the problem. If we’re going to make war on terrorists, then we should attack the terrorists just like we did in Afghanistan.

Homeland security - offense and defense - has lost focus and momentum by the party setting the agenda. Democratic legislators are trying to get homeland security back on track. Support them.

While you’re at it, rather than just complaining about the facts as I present them and subjecting us to your “I believe…” nonsense that flys in the face of hard data, why don’t you find out exactly what your Republican representatives are doing to protect this country and ask them why they’ve forgotten about 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

David,

Zeek, I hate to say it, but it appears obvious from your last comment that you never attended a war college. Many a great offense in history has been for nought when flanked. And our borders are the flanks.

How can you call something a great offense if it was susceptible to a flank attack? You’re definition of a “great offense” and mine seem to be quite different. Let me explain to you what I define it as: a great offense will be unstoppable and force your enemy into defense. If, and only if your enemy’s hands become tied can your offense be called “great.” An offense that affords your enemy such leniency that he/she may flank you cannot be called “great.”

This is why I consider Operation Iraqi Freedom such a failure. We haven’t really bogged down anyone but ourselves (the opposite of what we should do). When all is said and done, the terrorists will still be there, no weaker than the day we first invaded Iraq. Hence, we are unable to mount an effective offense, and hence, we must defend ourselves instead.

So I stand by what I said. A good offense, in the true meaning of the word, is a great subsitute for defense.

Steve Smith,

Sorry…the dirty bomb was more addressed to Alan Winship who suggested a ship carrying a nuclear weapon. That type of weaponry is not likely to be used and I wanted to point out the difference. Again, sorry for the confusion.

Regarding statistical approach to inspecting, I did miss that in your post. I think if we let our current homeland security head do his job he will make the correct decisions on a probablistic risk-type approach. There is one thing he will need once the assesment is complete….COLD HARD CASH.

I’m not going to go overboard here and blame the lack of funds entirely on GW. The Senate and House deserve equal blame, and I’m not just talking about the GOP here. Look at the PORC in the last spending bills. These guys should be ASHAMED for some of the stuff in there when we have the security concerns we have in this country….but, it’ll probably help them get re-elected (unless of course our security gets breached and the worst happens).

That said, I do feel GW deserves A LOT of the blame for the lack of funds. Firstly, we are running record budget deficits. We are at war with Iraq, in addition to the terrorist, and we have passed some massive tax cuts while our troops aren’t always adequately outfitted and our defenses are weak.

I think the Iraq war is one of the main reasons we are having monetary problems right now, and that has NOTHING to do with 9/11. Afghanistan did and does have plenty to do with 9/11, but not Iraq. Our premise changed from WMD to democracy for Iraqis. Neither of which were an immenent threat to our way of life and we are paying for it both with our money and our lives. Don’t get me wrong…too late to pull out now. But why are we there? Someone please tell me. If the answer is to spread democracy why start with Iraq? Why not Iran? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Sudan?

Okay, so we wanted an American presence in the Middle East for intelligence purposes and to feed our “black gold” hunger. We would have had that with Afghanistan (at least the operations center for intelligence).

(when I say “you”, here I am using the term generically…not addressing anyone in particular)

How serious are you about “supporting our troops”, as the bumbper stickers all over America say? Are you serious enough to accept a tax increase with the increase to be earmarked for Security or the war on terror? Are you serious enough to swallow your pride and buy your next automobile with a much improved fuel efficiency? Are you serious enough about it to let your Congressman know your frustrations?

We are the people. NOT our congressmen. Sure, they represent us…but if they are doing a poor job of it, by all means vote them out!!! I don’t care which party they belong to. The job of our government is to protect us from harm and be good stewards of our money. They are half-heartedly doing one and failing miserably at the other. Check up on your congressmen every now and then. Find out how they are voting. Write your local paper and ask them to cover congressional voting. Educate yourselves. Don’t go to the voting booth and pull a “blue” lever or “red” lever. If my congressman isn’t doing his job then I will not vote for him no matter what party he belongs to. What’s his job? To use my tax dollars wisely and to do everything he can to protect you, me, my children and yours.

Sorry to be so long-winded.

Hey Zeek,

When you figure out what this perfect offense is, be sure to tell our generals, I’m sure they’d love to have that in their plans.

In the meantime, since we already have a specific amount of money set aside for homeland defense, let’s spend it wisely, as A.P. is suggesting, instead of unwisely, as it is actually being spent.

As in football, you can spend all your money on your offensive line, and get to the superbowl, but you can also have a balanced team and get to the superbowl. At the end of the day, it’s about getting the best for your dollars.

Julia

Actually Julia you can spend a large portion of your money on an offensive line and get to the superbowl. You’ll still need to pay for the defense, special teams, and specialty players like running backs, etc.

But I think your point was just that….You can spend most of your money on offense and still get there….although that rarely works…it has in some cases (but then again, that’s football…this ain’t, so who knows?)

I think we don’t necessarily need to be totally balanced but we do need to carefully scrutinize where we put our defensive dollars and stop wasting so much darn money.

The one thing both sides should agree on is we simply want to be safe. That, at the end of the day, is the bottom line.

I don’t necessarily think either blue or red “keeps their eye on the ball” (to use another sports analogy), when it comes to our defense or our offense. They are too busy slamming the other side, worrying about re-election, and grabbing and maintaining political power (both sides).

Monday is Memorial Day. No matter which side of the fence you sit on regarding Iraq (just for the record I was/am con-Iraq) … please remember those that have died to give us the freedom of our open discussion we are having today.

Tom,

that is what I meant. You’re more likely to get to the superbowl spending your money on a balanced team, although there’s certainly plenty of ways to get there. Alas, I am a fan of the Miami Dolphins and know that it is an equally bad idea to spend ALL of your money on your defensive line. Ahhh, Miami.

Julia

I don’t think the republican party is helping the blue collar worker one bit. They have always been for big buisness, and always will be. I hope that for our sake they don’t compromise our safety for their children’s college funds.

Dawn wrote:

“I don’t think the republican party is helping the blue collar worker one bit. They have always been for big buisness, and always will be. I hope that for our sake they don’t compromise our safety for their children’s college funds.”

Whaa…huh? Don’t you write for the red team? Or is this a different Dawn?

“I don’t think the republican party is helping the blue collar worker one bit. They have always been for big buisness, and always will be. I hope that for our sake they don’t compromise our safety for their children’s college funds.”

Without the big business, where would the blue collor worker work?

Zeek asked: “How can you call something a great offense if it was susceptible to a flank attack?”

Precisely because the dictionary defines words for common meaning and precludes individuals from making up their own definitions in order to win an argument by breaking the rules, if they wish their argument to have credibility. I suggest we work with the dictionary definitions of defense and offense, so that we have a common language for intelligent discussion.

Dawn & Tomd,

For the past few days I’ve been reading a very interesting book, American Ideologies by Kenneth M. Dolbeare and Patricia Dolbeare. It’s an older book, published in 1971, but I think it touches upon the roots of what have become the dominant ideologies in american politics today. One of the ideologies it discusses is capitalism, and I must say I’ve found the in-depth discussion of its values, tenets, and goals fascinating. At the time this book was written, it was apparently strongly linked with liberalism rather than conservatism. Obviously, something has changed that in the intervening years.

This ideology, though, appears to entirely explain the republican point of view on the subject, and is exemplified by Tomd’s post. Capitalism believes firmly that, if left unimpeded, a natural balance will occur in economics such that workers will be paid wages capable of buying goods in the market and sustaining the economic cycle. At the same time, prices will fall to the lowest possible level as companies compete. Thus, it is believed that the only protections workers need are to keep the market from being artificially manipulated, and of course the traditional role of government in the economy as enforcer of contracts and collector of debts.

Of course, this ideology fails to some extent to take into account the business practices of the modern super-corporation which has the capacity to some extent to set prices for the resources it buys and to artificially create demand through advertising rather than responding to consumer wishes, but it remains a philosophy that many people believe strongly in, though in some cases a modified form.

tomd:

There was a time not long ago when Business was operated and owned by many people. Now everything is consolidated and one guy owns it all.

Do you know how many Companies own the ENTIRE US Media? Less than 5. This includes Newspapers, TV, Cable and soon the Internet.

Welcome to 1984 Republican style.

Whaa…huh? Don’t you write for the red team? Or is this a different Dawn?

Dawn actually has Democratic values. She just doesn’t like Democrats. :)

tomd, you’re right that we need big business, but giving them unnecessary tax breaks and subsidies just because they made big campaign donations to the majority party is irresponsible when the defense of our country is starving for funds.

For example, several oil companies made single year profits in the billions last year. Exxon made $25.33 billion. That’s not just a record profit for them, it’s a record for any corporation in the history of the entire human race.

Yet the GOP energy plan allocates billions more of our tax dollars to them for oil exploration outside the US, instead of using it to secure our ports, our borders, and to inspect at the point of origin the 83% of containers most likely to have a nuke inside that still go unchecked four years after 9/11. That’s just wrong.

Actually, I don’t believe in subsidies for anyone, however if we are going to have them I would rather them go to businesses who will put people to work. My personal belief is that all business and all social causes should either stand on it’s own feet or fall as it may, but I tend to be a little to the right of Atilla the Hun.

however if we are going to have them I would rather them go to businesses who will put people to work.

Me too, but over the last four years - even with the subsidies - businesses still haven’t been hiring. Not Americans, anyhow.

but I tend to be a little to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Heh. I noticed. :)

Seriously, though. What do you think: corporate subsidies, or border control? And what are your Senators doing to safeguard this country?

David,

I suggest we work with the dictionary definitions of defense and offense, so that we have a common language for intelligent discussion.

Oh, I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware that there was a dictionary definition for the term “great offense.” Perhaps I’m not looking hard enough…

This is a little off topic, but since AP asked here is how I stand. I thint there are very few things that the Federal government should be paying for. Of course national defence which includes strong border security, they should pay for roads and bridges and not much else. I believe that just about everything else can be done better and cheaper by private enterprise. If I were dictator (No I don’t want a dictator, not even me, but at this point it would take one to enact the changes) I would take all federal money out of all programs.
And for the second question, None of my government officials or yours are doing enough for our security. However, the Republicans are doing more than any Democrat I’ve seen in recent years.

“Dawn actually has Democratic values. She just doesn’t like Democrats.”

Oh, OK. That clears it up. Thanks AP.

However, the Republicans are doing more than any Democrat I’ve seen in recent years.

Put up or shut up, tomd. I listed three vital pieces of homeland security legislation that Democrats are trying to pass and Republicans will probably ignore. What are your guys doing?

AP,
You won’t agree with me but President Bush is doing an awful lot for our security. Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act to match your 3 examples. And those are off the top of my head while I watch an old war movie this morning. I’m sure with a little research I could find more.

tomd,

You won’t agree with me but President Bush is doing an awful lot for our security. Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act to match your 3 examples.

You’re kidding me. How are these contributing to our security?

Thank you for writing this…
i think that you and i are a dying race and i hope that saving america from the oil barons and superchristianrightwingfundamentalists become a more common theme among people daily lives.

Untill we can somehow get the politics out H.S. and border control nothing is going to get done on this issue.
I don’t know if that is even possible.

Dem.’s want most/all the H.S. money to go to big citys and blue states, even if they got their wish on that, if it couldn’t be used to somehow buy union votes they would resist that.

Most Americans want something done about the flood of illegals and secureing our borders, but most of that money would go to red states, and neither side wants to lose any of the hispanic vote.

So congress on both sides of the isle sets in Washington with their thumb up their ass doing nothing unless it can be used politicaly.

Guess what folks, this shouldn’t be a political issue and it will take both sides to get anything done.

The people we are fighting are our enemy. Any time you kill an enemy your security goes up. I agree it’s not as much as I would like but it is more than I’ve seen from the Democrats. Having said that, I don’t expect Democrats to agree with me. Their main point it seems is to destroy President Bush and block him at every turn.

Hi All:

Maybe this isn’t the proper place to debate this, however have any of our elected politicians once in power, “stopped, looked at their constituencies and asked them what it is they would like done?”. The elected officals need to realize that they represent “ALL” of the citizens of their districts, wards,.. etc not just those with the same affiliation. Once they realize that, I think this will be a better land.

Any time you kill an enemy your security goes up.

Not if you make more new enemies in the process….

Anyone here familiar with the myth of the hydra?

Weapons-grade uranium is still the bottle-neck. But with proliferators like our friends in Pakistan, and corruption like our friends in Russia, we can rest assured that terrorists are quickly moving forward on overcoming that little obstacle.

Julia,

Agreed. And actually with that whole post. Thanks for bringing some common sense into the debate.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act to match your 3 examples

tomd,

Afghanistan, yes, though we haven’t stayed focused there. Iraq, perhaps in another decade to two, depending on if we and they are successful in establishing democracy. Patriot Act - well, problematic. We’ve got to hope it helps because it sure looks like a step away from liberty.

All that said, we sure could use some bipartisan support on these security issues. This isn’t about “destroying Bush.” It’s about the nation as a whole, regardless of party affiliation.

tomd, the main point is to stop creating 10 more terrorists for everyone we kill. There hugely greater numbers of terrorists today than when Bush launched his Crusades.

Anyone think Bolton will counter this trend?

“tomd, the main point is to stop creating 10 more terrorists for everyone we kill. There hugely greater numbers of terrorists today than when Bush launched his Crusades.”

I am of the opinion that this wouldn’t be the case if we had close to full support back here.

tomd:

tomd, the main point is to stop creating 10 more terrorists for everyone we kill. There hugely greater numbers of terrorists today than when Bush launched his Crusades.

I am of the opinion that this wouldn’t be the case if we had close to full support back here.

I think you’re going to have to elaborate, and explain your logic on that. I’m just hoping it’s something more constructive than the repeated accusations that the “seditious” Democrats are inspiring our enemies.

OK To elaborate a little, It’s kink of like a football game when a big time school is playing a small one. If the big time school has the entire school at the game with all their cheerleaders it kink of overwhelms the little school and demoralizes them. Other people who want to play will usually want to play with the big school
Of course if the enemy thinks we are devided at home and don’t support our troups it gives them a boost in morale and makes it easier to recuit new members.
The same thing happened in Vietnam. Right after the Tet offensive which was an overwhelming victory for the US the anti war protesters got loud and the morale of the enemy was raised considerably. This is not based on web sites or news articles, I was there at that time and saw it first hand.

tomd said: “I am of the opinion that this wouldn’t be the case if we had close to full support back here.”

Right!!!! American’s fault again, eh? Your rhetoric just can’t seem to jive with itself, can it?

I am of the opinion that this wouldn’t be the case if we had close to full support back here.

Full support for a war is hard to get in a democracy. That’s one of the prices we pay and the benefits we receive. The argument for war must be very strong and clear. After 9/11, there was a virtual consensus that going to war with Afghanistan was the right thing.

Mr. Bush lost his foreign policy support by going into Iraq. Whether or not history decides this was the “right thing” to do (I imagine even history will see this in terms of grays), it was obviously something that was going to divide the nation, and not always along partisan lines.

The lesson? If you want full support, make sure your reasons for the war are crystal clear and widely supported (World War II and Afghanistan). If you want to conduct a war of choice for strategic reasons (Vietnam and Iraq), then you’re going to pay the price of less-than-full support, especially if the war drags on. Maybe this gives some hope to the enemy, but it’s inevitable in a free society.

The benefits? Sometimes it gets us out of wars we shouldn’t have been in in the first place. And it may also keep us from getting into wars we shouldn’t be fighting.

So, don’t blame the public for doing what they should do - question their leaders when the leaders are engaged in questionable behavior. It’s a messy, complex country filled with people with independent thought. We fight the “good wars” to keep it that way.

You crackpots should ask Bill Clinton why he sold
out to communist China and gave them Long Beach
navel shipyard as a shipping port. Why? He’s a
traitor. Plain and simple. This is a fact, yak
all you like, but quit pretending your people care
about this country.

AP,
When people are seduced into the petty partisan politics, they allow themselves to be distracted from the pressing problems facing the nation. Both parties are the problem. All of Congress and the Executive branch are the problem.
Suppose for a moment that government is the problem. What should voters do?
Time is running out.

The petty partisan politics has been going on forever. Is it getting us anywhere?

What do you think voters should do? Both parties take turns at the majority/minority, and pressing problems still don’t get solved. It’s not hard to find countless instances where politicians from both parties are incompetent, irresponsible, unethical, and breaking the law. Why waste time on the blame game. How about the solutions? Are these bills really going to help? And how much pork-barrel is in these bills too? I just don’t understand how anything can be underfunded when the government is spending $2 trillion per year and has racked up $8 trillion in national debt. I wonder how much port security could be purchased with only the interert paid daily (about $1 billion) on the national debt.

But, then, perhaps it is futile to expect such an irresponsible and unaccountable government to work on these pressing problems. It’s really getting ridiculous. The other day, I heard Medicare was being supplied to pedophiles and incarcerated criminals, at the tax payers expense. And, that’s just the tip of the ice-berg.

The Bush administration has been a fairly decent steward of trade relations with China. It has overruled imposing sanctions under the China safeguard law on each of four occasions that the U.S. International Trade Commission recommended that prescription. It declined to initiate an investigation into what U.S. unions were calling unfair labor practices in China, and it dismissed a similar investigation into currency undervaluation.

Cato Institute

….that is, Medicare is paying for Viagra for pedophiles and incarcerated criminals, at the tax payers expense.

Have none of you heard of the Downing Street Memo, and that the people who provided intelligence to support Bush’s decision to invade Iraq have been rewarded with promotions instead of being held accountable for doing sloppy work?

If you want full support of any war, then the regime in charge should be honest and forthright about its reasons for taking us to war in the first place. If there really is a clear and present danger, then we should all be made aware of it, but to manufacture such is dishonest and will garner only the support of ideologues.

All this talk about partisan politics ignores the (apparent to some) fact that America has been lied to and the news has been cancelled. Its time to wake up and not only smell the coffee, but figure out how to make a better brew.

tomd, the main point is to stop creating 10 more terrorists for everyone we kill. There hugely greater numbers of terrorists today than when Bush launched his Crusades.

I am of the opinion that this wouldn’t be the case if we had close to full support back here.

Well, your opinion is interesting tomd, but the facts don’t back it up. Bin Laden couldn’t give a crap either way about American opinion on Iraq, he’s just happy that Bush got re-elected (as is Iran) and US troops are bogged down there instead of going after his ass in Pakistan.

And you never did come up with any examples of your Republican Senators doing diddly squat to improve America’s security. Here’s the Senate website, you can get to your Senator’s web sites from there. Look it up. If they’re not doing anything, like I’m telling you they’re not, send ‘em an email and demand some action on the borders and the ports. They work for you.

BTW, somebody asked if any of our representatives ask us what their priorities should be. Yes. Barbara Boxer puts up a survey on her site every year - and sends out an email - asking Californians what we want her working on. And as always, we can call or email and give her our 2 cents anytime. Republican, Democrat, Green, whatever. She’s our representative.

Rin T T, Crackpots??? You say “ask Bill Clinton why he sold out to communist China and gave them Long Beach navel shipyard as a shipping port. Why? He’s a traitor.” What planet are you living on??? Bill Clinton was one of our best presidents ever. Do you forget how good the US was doing economically when President Clinton was in charge? What has Bush done for our country? Let me enlighten you…He’s done nothing but run our country into the ground. Rather than the surplus that our previous president left us with, Bush has left our future generations billions (if not trillions) of dollars in debt. And what about the “Iraq war” Tell me Rin T T, why did we invade Iraq again? Oh yeah, that’s right WMD’s. Hmmm, where are those WMD’s? What about Bin Laden? If he was responsible for the thousands that died on 9-11, why are we in Iraq rather than searching for him??? Bush has had 5 yrs. now and still no Bin Laden. I think you better reconsider which party has the crackpot “leader”.

Tapia, I read that story yesterday. That is a very important story. Thanks for providing the link.

DEMOCRATS: DEFENDERS OF DEMOCRACY

That’s just more partisan politics. That may rally democrats and irritate republicans, but it only perpetuates another clever distraction (by design) that stands in the way of finding solutions.

Boxer and Polosie are part of the problem with this nation, because they hate Bush so much, and perpetuate the petty partisan bickering and squabbling, and fight solutions for partisan reasons, regardless of whether they are good or bad solutions.

Boxer is also gun-control proponent, which should not be a priority of this nation (that’s really a law-enforcement problem; i.e. enforcement of existing laws…more laws wont’ solve anything; guns don’t kill people - people kill people).

It almost seems even Hillary Clinton sees the problem with such vitriolic rhetoric:

The results of the election are a strong rebuke to those who did not believe that the Iraqi people would take this
opportunity to demonstrate their own commitment to their own future.?, so says Hillary Clinton in Iraq this
weekend! Is Kerry, Kennedy, Polosie, and Reid going to come out and admit it? I doubt it.

I wondered during the entire (lengthy) election season if all of that negative, petty partisan rhetoric wasn’t going to backfire.
____________
Regarding port security … those bills seem somewhat pointless when the U.S. borders are wide open, and thousands of illegal trespassers are walking right across the border every day, and government is irresponsible for ignoring the problem, and refusing to prosecute those (e.g. Walmart) that are employing illegal aliens, which makes the problem worse by wasting resources and compounding the problem.

The Joke on America… Ha ha ha. That’s a good one. Wal-Mart, a company with $285 billion in sales, gets fined a mere $11 million earlier this month for having hundreds of illegal immigrants clean its stores. The federal government boasts it’s the largest fine of its kind. But for Wal-Mart, it amounts to a rounding error - and no admittance of wrongdoing since it claims it didn’t know its contractors hired the illegals.

Bush is a big part of the problem with illegal aliens. He wants to give illegal trespassers amnesty, and calls the Minute Men vigilantes.
What Bush really means is he wants to keep letting Walmart and other companies continue to get cheap labor, and national security be damned. What could be more bass-ackwards than that? Seems counter-productive at the very least; spend $billions on homeland security, but continue to allow thousands of illegal trespassers (i.e. cheap labor) to enter daily. But, then, perhaps it’s not as counter-productive as it seems? Where are all those $billions really going?

They’re all hypocrites and motivated by money and power, while doing the bare minimum to appear well-meaning, and doing a fine job of seducing voters into the petty partisan politics to distract them from what’s really happening.

Why don’t we vote all of their irresponsible, unaccountable butts out of office, every election, until they get the message, and start solving some problems?

Without the big business, where would the blue collor worker work?
Posted by: tomd at May 28, 2005 05:44 AM

Tom an equally valid question is without the blue collar worker where would the big business be??
OOPS I can answer my own question — they would be where they are now in third world nations paying pennies on the dollar to get things made and then selling them here for beyond top dollar.

Why is it that the Republics tried to impeach Clinton and the Democrats cant get Bush impeached for “misleading” us to war?

I think its because the Democrats are scared of republicans.

I may be young, and out of touch with politics, but I remember the republicans saying that if Clinton lied about that what else would he lie about.
But for Bush, every body forgives and forgets while peaople are DYING in IRAQ.
Where is the sense?

Aldous, You say “protecting us from Terrorists is hard work” Hmmm…It must be, considering Bush has yet to find the true terrorist responsible for the loss of thousands of innocent lives. In case you are confused as to what I am referring to, let me refresh your memory. I am speaking of Bin Laden and 9-11. Oh yeah…Bin Laden. Hmmm…Let’s see, do you suppose we’ll find him in Iraq? Maybe you can explain to all us uneducated, uninformed democrats what exactly we are doing in Iraq. Oh yeah…those pesky WMD’s that never existed. We had no business invading Iraq to begin with. It makes me sick that my own brother was sent there to fight in Bush’s fictitious war. Fortunately he was lucky enough to come home in one piece unlike all the other brothers, sons, husbands & fathers that lost their lives because of Bush. ‘s lies. And yes, he is solely responsible for the loss of their lives. Contrary to what you )(nd others like you) believe, we don’t have to support Bush to love our country.

Without the big business, where would the blue collor worker work?

Very likely the same place he worked for ages before super-corporations began to grow up. Small factories that sell their goods locally, small businesses, perhaps even his own business. How many people were driven from prosperous small-business ownership by corporations which dwarfed them and drove them from business by the sheer size of their companies and the volume of business they do? For every supermarket that opens, how many small food shops are put out of business… local butchers, bakers, stores that sell fresh produce? For every Walmart, how many other stores are lost?

It may be true that, on the whole, these large corporations employ a greater number of people than the smaller stores which they displaced. I don’t dispute that. But what a difference in the quality of employment there has been, and the return one may expect for an honest day’s work.

Did you know that only a handful (6 or 7) of giant corporations control all governments (especially the U.S.)? Halliburton is one of them. Don’t believe it?

Who’s Running Things
When Corporations Rule the World
Corporate Rule

Does any one of you have a ( REAL LIFE } ?
If you had to live, and function in the real
world, instead of the make believe “LIB” life.
You panzy’s could’nt cut the mustard. I know this
for a fact. Go outside you front door. If needed
ask one of us gun owning neighbors for an escort.
We will be more than happy to take you for a walk.

Halliburton is going to drill in MAR’S for oil.
Your next, bend over.

Yeah…I heard that too.

My neighbor told me all about this stuff (Corporations Ruling the World). Check it out.

BTW, World Championship Wrestling is real too.

Rin T T, ratchet down the personal flame baiting if you wish to continue participating here at WatchBlog. Critique the arguments here, not the people here.

d.a.n, the reason medicare covers Viagra is because it is a treatment for heart disease… You know that right?

If needed ask one of us gun owning neighbors for an escort.

LOL! It still amazes me how many of you guys think Democrats are unarmed. :D

Hey, I saw where the Bush administration finally admitted they suck at counterterrorism. It’s about time. If they’re smart, they’ll adopt the vastly more effective methods Democrats are suggesting.

It is kind of sad, though, that Bush has finally just given up on killing or capturing bin Laden. What a wuss. It’s not like we don’t know who’s harboring him.

That sounds good, but I doubt Democrats will make it happen, since Democrats (in general) backed current policies and are equally responsible (i.e. all Democrats, Republicans, and the Executive branch). They all led us down the path we’re on now. Just because the Democrats hypocritically now blame it on everyone else doesn’t mean they’re the solution.

The nation is facing many pressing problems, but none of these problems can ever be resolved without a responsible government willing to do so. It’s amazing how government can spend $trillions every year and accomplish so little good and so much bad.

And on this day especially, it is sad how many lives are wasted due to the irresponsibility and unaccountability of the gang of over two million in the Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the relatively smaller 435 in Congress and their hundreds of thousands employees.

The essence of totalitarianism, is the destruction of the parliamentary or legislative branch of government, by the Executive branch.

We should send a clear message to Cogress, vote them all out, and elect people who would take their oath of office to the Constitution seriously, and their first act of such a constitutional Congress would be reducing the bloated executive branch.

d.a.n:

I admire your position but you are wasting your time supporting Third Parties. The Major Corporations, Special Interest Groups, Lobbyists, Media and the Religious Nuts will NEVER let a Third Party rise. A Third Party will weaken the hold these few people have on Power. Ergo, nuts like Nader will lose.

Aldous,
I don’t really support any parties.
I’d like to encourage people to ignore all parties, because they are part of the problem.
But, if all of the many third parties seized the same one-simple-idea message, all of those many third parties may finally get a chance at office. What else could there possibly be to unite all third parties?

Otherwise, you’re right….they’ll never get elected due to the two-party system that has created barriers to exclude third parties on ballots and debates, and the vast election fraud perpetrated by both main parties. This is actually one idea that could possibly resonate with voters, to perhaps give third party candidates one chance to prove they can do better. And if they blow it, voters should continue to vote ‘em all out. This is the only thing voters have left, that is simple enough to ever work, and has the necessary peaceful force required to restore a balance of power between the People, Executive Branch, and Congress. Currently, the vast Executive Branch has more power and millions more people than Congress. There’s an imbalance. Congress, in their fumbling and stumbling, are mostly unwitting accomplices, and usually too busy piling on pork-barrel and subsidies to special interests, gathering $millions while trying to get re-elected, voting themselves raises, and busy seducing voters into the perpetual petty partisan bickering and politics. The people are concerned, but tired of it all, resigned to the futility of their votes having no effect, don’t know what to do about it, and are mostly waiting for history to repeat itself. Theoretically, it doesn’t have to be this way.

Aldous, your logic does not hold up. If current convention were capable of halting all change, Jesus would never have become the focal point of a vast religion, the world would still be flat, and the civil rights would not exist in America.

The proposition that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote is like telling Paul that writing down Jesus’s words is a waste of time, or telling Galileo that making lenses will never change the universe, or telling blacks that peaceful demonstrations is an exercise in futility.

….that is, Medicare is paying for Viagra for pedophiles and incarcerated criminals, at the tax payers expense.

Zeek wrote: ….d.a.n, the reason medicare covers Viagra is because it is a treatment for heart disease… You know that right?

LOL !
No, I didn’t.
Please, let’s not give them more ideas. :(

David,

Exellent point about 3rd. partys having a chance for getting elected, and EVEN gaining control.
Their chances have never been better!

In my humble opinion the Const. party has the best chance of all the 3rd partys to win elections.( I voted for one in 04 for US congress, in a solid Rep. district, and he did very well with nothing to spend!) I dont have exact figures, but I think he beat the Dem. in the same 3 party race.

If they were to come out with a solid, non confusing platform based on issues, and field someone that really believed what they were selling, they could take all but the far right/left.( that block of voters would equal 60%).

Beagle, I agree with you that the Constitution Party is poised to win some elections if the Fund. Right Evangelical Christians (FRECs) leave the Republican Party to join it.

However, the platform of the Constitution Party is hardly mainstream, middle of the road, or centrist. I read it, it is pretty radical in some aspects. So, I would disagree that the Constitution Party would have any real chance of garnering even 35% of the nation’s voters, let alone 60%.

Now if you are talking about the CP revamping their platform to conform to more moderate, centrist, and middle of the road perspectives, then we are not talking about the FRECs moving to it, but, away from it.

David,

I havn’t read their platform, I called this guy personally, at his home, and ask him his opinion on every issue that I cared about, without giving him a clue what my opinion was.
I prepared the questions in advance, put some far left/right questions in the test to get his honest opinion without pandering, he agreed and scored 100%!

Some issues have no moderate or “meet me half way” view that will gain votes, its like someone wanting to cut your legs off, if they finally agree to only cut one off, they met you half way, you wanted to keep both, but they claim to have tryed to compromise.
It just won’t change many votes/minds.

Here is the link to the Constitution Party’s 2000 Platform

David,

Here is the link to the Constitution Party’s 2000 Platform

I was immediately saddened by their belief that the Constitution allows for the right of “property.” Because in all honesty, it doesn’t. Unfortunately things sort of went down hill from there…

Like when they claimed the fetus was made in God’s image… If you look at the fetuses of various creatures, fish, monkeys etc. you will notice they are remarkably similar to a human fetus for the first trimester. So I’m not quite sure they are against aborting embryos… Oh well.

However, being Mr. Brightside, I like to think that this new party will split the Republicans and restore balance to the government.

Zeek, yes, they take great liberties in interpreting the Constitution according to their values and needs. That is one of the reasons FRECs on the Supreme Court will give “activist” an even more pronounced meaning.

That sounds good, but I doubt Democrats will make it happen, since Democrats (in general) backed current policies and are equally responsible

Umm… The Republocrats, you mean? Ahh, how I miss those days. You and Nader need to wake up. Things have changed.

AP wrote: That sounds good, but I doubt Democrats will make it happen, since Democrats (in general) backed current policies and are equally responsible Umm… The Republocrats, you mean? Ahh, how I miss those days. You and Nader need to wake up. Things have changed.

Republocrats, Democrats, Republicans, blah, blah, blah. More childish, devisive labels. I don’t even know for certain what Nader stands for. Personally, I always thought Nader was a wannabe master-cheater-parasite politician, who spent a large part of his life making a living off of trumped up consumer protection myths, and really producing no net benefit to society.

And what has changed? Nothing much really…except that the U.S. is in decline, and not enough people are concerned about it. Government is still irresponsible and unaccountable, and some people still like to wallow in the petty partisan bickering, labels, and name calling (e.g. Republocrat, etc.). How revealing. It speaks for itself.

d.a.n, it sounds like you’ve never heard the term Republocrat before. It means you don’t believe it matters which party is in power, since they’re both the same. That sounded like what you were saying.

AP wrote:

d.a.n, it sounds like you’ve never heard the term Republocrat before. It means you don’t believe it matters which party is in power, since they’re both the same. That sounded like what you were saying.

Wrong, I’ve heard the term, and I know what it means.

d.a.n, …. It means you don’t believe it matters which party is in power, since they’re both the same. That sounded like what you were saying.

Both main parties are irresponsible and unaccountable. It’s little better than a choice between dumb and dumber.

Labels, parties, etc., and all the time and energy spent trying to categorize everyone and everything into a label (e.g. Republocrat, Democrat, Republican, neocon, etc.) is a supreme waste of time, and a clever distraction used to keep voters (i.e. sheep, cattle) from knowing what’s really going on. From the looks of these blogs, it’s a very effective distraction from the lack of solutions being implemented by government. Why do any real work when we can make the people (i.e. sheep, cattle) think we’re doing very hard and complex work. I’d like to know why people are so easily distracted and so fond of wallowing in the sty of petty partisan bickering and squabbling?

Probably, because it’s easier than doing any real work to solve any real problems.

AP, like Mahatma Gandhi, Nader offered a way out of the seeming insoluble problems we continually face. Like the world, then, Americans in 2000 and 2004 were too blind to see the light through the door Nader held open.

Nader was a great man and candidate whose motives were true and sincere, and whose target was corruption of our democracy in all of its many hats and facets. The best Dem’s could come up with was Bush lite…

d.a.n

Both main parties are irresponsible and unaccountable. It’s little better than a choice between dumb and dumber.

Wouldn’t you want to choose dumb and not dumber? :P

Ok that was stupid, here’s some enlightening poetry to compensate:

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

-Robert Frost

From the looks of these blogs, it’s a very effective distraction from the lack of solutions being implemented by government.

d.a.n, that’s actually kind of funny coming from a guy who’s on here a lot promoting his own personal brand of partisan rhetoric. And I didn’t see a link to your site in your last post. Let me help you out: One Simple Idea. :)

I’d like to know why people are so easily distracted and so fond of wallowing in the sty of petty partisan bickering and squabbling?

Sometimes it’s just fun to wallow. I value different points of view and I like afflicting people with mine.

AP,

You are EXACTLY correct!

“I value different points of view and I like afflicting people with mine.”

Often in a thread that seems to be going “mostly right”, someone jumps in with a link to a site thats all conservative to bash the left.

My reply will always be;..No thanks, If I wanted to talk to myself I’d do it in a mirror!

Zeek wrote: Wouldn’t you want to choose dumb and not dumber? :P

AP wrote: Sometimes it’s just fun to wallow. I value different points of view and I like afflicting people with mine.

Me too. I promote no partisanship, no party, or groups.
I realize it’s probably all futile, and history
will repeat itself, and the cycle will start all
over again anyway. But, I merely promote one
simple idea that theoretically has a chance to end the cycle.
I come here to seek solutions and constructive criticism, and learn ways to improve solutions.

For that, I sincerely thank everyone.
____________________________
The U.S. is in its 2nd cycle:
(1) oppression
(2) courage, revolution
(3) liberty, abundance
(4) selfishness, complacency
(5) apathy, dependency
(6) return to step (1)

Where do you think the U.S. is now (today)?
____________________________

I promote no partisanship, no party, or groups… I merely promote one simple idea

Heh. But as soon as someone agrees with you and you guys act on your “one simple idea”, you’ve become an ideological movement - a group - a party - a partisan. Congratulations, you’ve come a long way, baby! :)

Who did you vote for in the last election?

If I remember correctly, you voted for the incumbent in the last election. You’ve split from your own party. That’s freaky. :)

I disagree. Individuals agree on many things and that does not make them a party. It only means they have common beliefs.
AP, I have no party, and I did not formulate One Simple Idea until after the last election.

Therefore, you’re statement is non-sequitur. But, please keep right on mischaracterizing it, and I’ll be happy to keep shooting holes in what you say.

Fire away! :)

How discussing some solutions for our pressing problems?
Instead of bashing Republicans all the time? What’s that solve?